Author Topic: INLAND EMPIRE  (Read 78694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #315 on: August 21, 2008, 11:17:56 PM »
0
after a fateful second viewing, i have decided that this is a bad movie.

you're just plain wrong. this movie is a masterful exploration of an artist's relationship with work as it develops. it's solidly executed from a technical standpoint and it's an unhindered expression of lynch's vision. if you didn't like it, i'm sorry that you had that experience, but this film is great.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10866
  • Respect: +1273
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #316 on: September 22, 2008, 01:55:48 PM »
0
You know there's something there, and you know it's important, and you also know that you're a long way from getting it.

QFT, as they say. QFT.

I'm currently revisiting INLAND EMPIRE pretty hardcore, reading up and figuring things out. It's definitely harder than I expected. There's so much meaning in this film, it's ridiculous. I think I have it mostly figured out, and I'll post my interpretation once I iron out some details. I'd really like to discuss a few things with the people at the official message board, but the administrator seems slow to approve new accounts.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Respect: +135
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #317 on: September 22, 2008, 09:00:42 PM »
0
way to take one for the team.

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #318 on: September 27, 2008, 08:11:07 PM »
0
I thought QFT stood for 'quite fucking true'
context, context, context.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10866
  • Respect: +1273
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #319 on: September 29, 2008, 11:41:52 AM »
0
I think the most common meaning (and the one I intended) is "quoted for truth."
"Hunger is the purest sin"

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #320 on: September 30, 2008, 01:15:14 PM »
0
Quantum Field Theory is the first result that google throws, i thought you had discovered some deep stuff about that in the movie.

 i'll never comment on anything again.
context, context, context.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #321 on: September 30, 2008, 04:01:13 PM »
0
Quit Fucking-up Threads
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #322 on: May 17, 2009, 08:59:30 PM »
0
Now that it's been a while and everybody have calmed down (not especially here but in the critics circles). When I look at this film in my David Lynch collection I am now convinced that it is his absolute lesser film. It will not be a ''stain'' but it almost feels like a student film at times.

There are moments in it, especially Laura Dern's performance I guess.. but the ''weirdness'' is not as involving and hypnotizing as Mul. Drive no ?

Will this be remembered in... 5 years ?

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
  • Respect: +135
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #323 on: May 17, 2009, 09:13:49 PM »
0
movie's shit. thread re-abandoned.

Astrostic

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: 0
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #324 on: May 17, 2009, 11:44:47 PM »
0
movie's not shit. It's Lynch's, and the century's, best.

The film avoids all of the glossy, calculated phoniness exhibited by most living filmmakers, as well as any of David's previous films, and contains not a single moment that isn't genuine and honest.  Nothing in this film rings in as 'weird for weird's sake', and, regardless of whether or not it 'makes sense' in any convention realm, the experience of watching it, letting it penetrate whatever corner of my mind and memory that it pleases, was all the sense that needed to be made for me. The last half-hour (post Hollywood @ Vine/ending #1) is pure bliss.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #325 on: May 18, 2009, 12:26:36 AM »
0
There are moments in it, especially Laura Dern's performance I guess.. but the ''weirdness'' is not as involving and hypnotizing as Mul. Drive no ?

I have no comment on Inland Empire, but it's funny because Muholland Drive has really dropped off for me. I originally liked the film a great deal, even called it the Citizen Kane of its type, but I re-watched it last month and was sad that film played like a jigsaw puzzle for teenagers. Every scene was easy to dissect and fit into its larger picture that I just became bored while watching it. Few scenes existed for their own narrative sake. It was all dedicated to a puzzle but the problem is that after a few viewings, the puzzle is as obvious as a Salvador Dahli painting about dreams. Still well done, but doesn't hold up for the long term.

I'm still a non David Lynch fan because The Straight Story is still his best work to me

SiliasRuby

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
  • Spits Hyperbole Like Nobody's Business
  • Respect: +2
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #326 on: May 18, 2009, 11:58:23 AM »
0
I recently saw it a week ago ad it still holds up to me. It's still as emotional draining every time I see i. This is the 4th time.
The Beatles know Jesus Christ has returned to Earth and is in Los Angeles.

When you are getting fucked by the big corporations remember to use a condom.

There was a FISH in the perkalater!!!

My Collection

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #327 on: May 22, 2009, 02:29:14 AM »
0
i can't believe how easily i followed what you were saying. unlike your Keys to the World review, you found a good font size.

i don't wanna jinx you, cos you still hav to write the damn thing, but i think you might end up offering the most comprehensive opposition to bonzie's review. currently i agree with a lot of what bonze has said. he's made great points in both his epic posts, which i don't know if anyone else read.

jb had a great review on page 15 but i don't expect him to elaborate specifically to counter bonze. other great moments have been Ghostboy's predictions on page 8, in which he predicted i wouldn't like it at first but eventually come to realise i do (brilliant!).. at this point i'm in the first stage, so he's right so far. page 6 and page 8 has my two bogus reviews, i didn't see the movie until much later.

a couple of things i want to mention, this being a kind of bookmark review:
-why is everyone getting the "sowing heavy shit" line all wrong? imdb included. isn't it "some kind of heavy shit"?
-neon, the funny thing is that your attitude and approach to films might seem inelegant but it's perfect for lynch films because they too are loopy.
-due to the nature of the film, i think it's possible that both bonze AND neon may be right. bonzie is right because no serious person who likes to stay awake while watching a movie will deny that there is some points where YOU JUST CAN'T! and maybe that's a beautiful thing. there are also some undeniably brilliant Lynch moments amidst this 3 hour cure for insomnia.

and so the question becomes about one's threshold for lynch. if this is the man with his guts on your front lawn, how long can you stare at them before you just hav to close the door in disgust or boredom? certainly his future films will provide this answer. the question itself is a beautiful thing.


.......i have to quopte you....seroiudly,P..gewt your ass back hear....!  anyways i briefly skimmed over HJB'sanalysis and quite honhestly he makes all thre hayters lookj like ben lyons (aka ignorant douche bags.......TAZ u know i love u  :love:)....I wish I had Jb's brain...anyoneds whos reading this neeesds to stop what they doong and thank him.  JB has just open the floodgATES .......thank u JB...ill finish it up the 24th........

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #328 on: May 25, 2009, 12:39:58 AM »
0
i have wrote previously on this thread that details my major gripe with this film (and also on the thread for synedoche ny for the exact same reason).  yet i post again because i can't help but notice how almost no one is talking about the movie, but rather why it should exist and how lynch is bold for making it.  i do appreciate how some people have come back since it died down to re-evaluate their impression, which i find insightful.

i think:

- the movie is too long. there is no plot to adhere to, so why not cut it down?
- the acting is bad.
- we've seen lynch do everything in this film before - (which isn't inherently bad, but since it comes to mind i can't help but think originality is the major element in his expression)

I'm worried that lynch's freedom has gotten the worst of him.  he shoots it autonomously on video with next to no budget, with no external pressures to appease.  normally i would applaud that kind of work environment, however, in this case it bloated up the picture with a ton of stuff that simply wasn't needed.

i question why people like this film, and if some of you have convinced yourself to like this film because of it's stigma.  it just seems like a hipster thing to like because it's abstract... which is lame.

-sl-

PS. i do like the scene on the street where the characters are lying down talking to eachother, and the crazy shot of laura approaching the camera at night looking like a maniac but that's about it, film coulda been those two scenes and i woulda been way more impressed.  which i guess is kinda the point, why go back to the same theme over and over and over in tedium... get to the point/expression/message david and then move on... boring.
the one last hit that spent you...

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10866
  • Respect: +1273
Re: INLAND EMPIRE
« Reply #329 on: May 25, 2009, 02:19:28 PM »
0
it just seems like a hipster thing to like because it's abstract... which is lame.

Except it's not abstract.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy